deraneyesq — 7 years ago
July 11th, 2018 – Update on the Bail Reform Act
For context, we have previously updated ya’ll on the case of Brittan Holland and Lexington National Insurance Corp. v. Rosen with the following post:
“On September 22nd, 2017, U.S. District Judge Jerome Simandle, in Brittan Holland and Lexington National Insurance Corp. v. Rosen, refused to halt the enforcement of NJ’s Criminal Justice Reform Act following suit by the Plaintiffs based on constitutional challenges under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The Judge’s decision, albeit on the the motion for preliminary injunction, started with a balance of the risks shows the harm to others is greater if injunction granted vs. denied. To read more about the ruling, click here.”
On July 10th, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that the Plaintiff Lexington National Insurance Corp. did not have standing to challenge New Jersey’s Bail Reform Act. Lexington National Insurance Corp. underwrites bail bonds in New Jersey and has been fighting the Bail Reform Act since its New Jersey business has dwindled under it.
However, the Court did hold that Brittan Holland did have standing to challenge the law but “failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on his assertion that bail reform violates his rights under the 4th, 8th, and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.” Holland is under electronic monitoring while awaiting trial on aggravated assault charges stemming from his involvement in a bar fight.
Because of the procedural aspects of the case, the litigation has not been dismissed as of yet, however, the ruling opens the door for the State to file a Motion to Dismiss the case. To read more about this precedential ruling, click here.
